General Question

Do you know any good databases for material properties?

Believe it or not, trying to cross-reference several properties for an unknown set of materials using Google gets quite old, quite fast. It would be very nice if there were a website that had all, or at least most, of this information in one place. Any engineers out there who use such a thing?

@DarkScribe No, it’s geared towards locating academic papers and articles, not dedicated web forums or sites. In this case it is a loss because you’d end up sifting through academia in order to locate the reference to your desired resource.

Isn’t that what I just said? The search is shaped – orientated, biased, focused toward academia – but it still brings up all references – only further down the queue. It is the only Google search I use – I have been using it since its inception. The only thing that I don’t get are thousands of Google Groups hits.

It relies on careful advanced search criteria. It accepts Boolean operators and you can pretty well find anything quite quickly. Maybe it is because almost all of my searches are related to research and academia – but I still find many reference to non-academic issues.

When the OP first posted I did a search on material property databases and found plenty of material.

Someone without experience using that engine might interpret your description as “this is like the Google you know and love, but it filters out non-academic sources” when in fact, as you and I both know, it searches for pertinent literature.

I’m not so sure it would bring up the same results, even further down the line, unless someone specifically chose to write a comparative piece on various materials resources or something.

I’m also of the opinion that Google Scholar and the General search should both be used when appropriate. That’s why both exist, isn’t it? In this situation, where he is specifically interested in a database and not necessarily a single study concerning any one material or property, Google gets the job done much more quickly.

I prefer to search and get five hundred hits very closely related to my search criteria than half a million hits with an almost impossible to fathom relationship to the criteria. That is why I prefer Scholar. But as previously noted, I do little other than real research, or at least have little interest in anything other than the results of real research. If I was looking at things like pop groups, fashion, fads, opinion, etc., it would possibly be nowhere near as efficient.

I consider conventional Google to have reached the stage where a combination of paid and rank manipulated responses in unrealistic volume has begun to choke its effectiveness.

BTW, please don’t take offense – I am very set in my ways – I am not trying to change the way you or anyone else does things – just making suggestions.

@DarkScribe I can accept that for you it is entirely unnecessary and unhelpful to use an engine that is of little use to your field and interests, but I think sweeping all the content of a General Google (henceforth referred to as GGoogle) search into such narrow, shallow categories is definitely small-minded and a bit offensive. Whether or not the phrasing was intended in the following ways, it certainly implies that GGoogle is good for nothing else, no one can successfully navigate or tailor their searches so as to access information efficiently, and that I can only be interested in such things (in addition to implying I must have no interest in, or involvement in real research.)

Also, to clarify, as we happen to be communicating via several questions at once, I’m not singling you out, and in this particular thread, I am certainly not really bothered or upset over the matter, I just like a good debate as well as the next person. So no hard feelings.

Although, if it really bothers you, we can certainly drop this if you’d like, as we’re waaaay off topic and I doubt I will ever convince you.

@Beta_Orionise’re waaaay off topic and I doubt I will ever convince you.

No, you will not convince me now – although you might have a few years ago. Google is choking, even Google Images is. There are too many hits without real relevance – even with some experienced in using detailed search criteria. Because of occupation requirements I use Google constantly to check and verify material – for that I need links to real data. I used Google and Deja Vu before it, and can really see the difference. I can certainly use Google and wade through the morass of unrelated hits – or refine the search, but prefer to use Google other apps developed by Google for those purposes.

I am not fan of creating extra work and if Google worked better I would use it. For example, an hour or so ago I had to check some facts about the development of hydrogen powered cars. On Scholar I got 4150 hits, most of them relevant. I just tried the same search on Google. 495,000 hits and I needed to go through four pages to find something relevant. I could have either set up a very detailed or refined search on Google, or just stuck with my very basic search on Scholar.

@DarkScribe Fair enough! And I certainly wasn’t arguing that you should use GGoogle at all if you are that set in your ways, especially not for your research, just that Google, even as choked as it has become, is still a useful tool depending on the circumstance.

Also, it’s 3:29 a.m. here, and @aphilotus has been calling me to sleep for the past 20 minutes, so I suppose I’m off. Thanks for one of the more interesting discussions I’ve had here!

So, just a quick note that’s back on topic, have you tried Wolfram Alpha, Jayne? I haven’t used it much at all, but it is supposed to be made specifically for looking up information like that. Don’t know how good it is at cross-referencing, but it may be worth a look.

Try the ASTM standards that have the standards for materials from any type of stainless steel to prophylactic rubbers. I can’t recall if they are publicly available. I needed them for a school project and pirated them. Don’t hate me Fluther.